Thanks everyone. I have offered to compromise with the seller and share the costs. He is adamant, however, that any contribution would be seen as an admission of liability for future costs. I offered to write a letter absolving him of future responsibility if he contributed to the initial treatment. Again, he was unwilling to accept this. I’m pretty busy getting all the quotes / info together, but I’ll keep the post updated as I go. Thanks again.

I’d really rather not get into a discussion about the merits of cross breads. That said, I owned a cocker spaniel for 8 years before he sadly passed away earlier this year. Buying a KC registered dog provides you with very little assurance of good breading / healthy dogs. Like most things, there are ethical and unethical sellers in both KC registered and cross breaders.

Thanks so much for your feedback, Hightail. I really appreciate you helping with research. I think as Bankfodder says, "Of course it would be helpful if it is possible to say that the breeder should have known about this – but liabilities in contract are pretty strict and so it's not especially relevant. The fact is that you bought defective goods and you are entitled to reject them or to insist on a repair at your option."

Yes, I am in contact with the other people that have bought puppies. I can start to build that file of evidence. The surgery is booked for next Monday, which gives me time to receive the written quotations and send the letter with 48 hours notice. I've already got the quotes over the phone so hopefully won't take too long to receive them in writing. Thanks again for all your help, I really appreciate it.

Understood, thank you. I will post the letter of claim on here once I've drafted it. I just have one final question about the costs, please. The cost of the operation I've booked him in for is £390. Following that there is some on-going therapy to encourage the adult canine to grow in normally, (around £50) and, if successful, our puppy will be healthy The worst case, however, is that the adult canine is also lingually displaced, and in that situation a second round of treatment will be needed. In this case there are two options: remove the canine, which is not desirable as there are a range of complications / quality of life issues, or shorten and crown the tooth so it doesn't impinge on the gum. The second option would probably be around £2000. Should I detail in my letter of claim the worst case and claim for that? Or claim for the £440 and submit a new claim if complications arise further down the line? Or claim for the cost of the puppy minus £50 and argue that was the market value, and pay the worst case myself if that happens later on? Thanks again everyone. This will be my last post for today - have a great afternoon / evening

P.40/41 - C. Tier 2 Remedies – reduction in price or reject/refund C. Tier 2 Remedies – reduction in price or reject/refund Again, I'm not an expert and just doing my best with the research I've done. Happy to be corrected / questioned. Thanks

@BankFodder Re the 'letter of claim' you're absolutely right, I'm sorry, that was a lazy question from me. I'm feeling the fatigue from the stress of this. I'll look it up. In terms the comments I made about a replacement - I've read this document (see link below) and it seemed to suggest that I'd need to prove that finding a suitable alternative would provide us with 'significant inconvenience', in order to legitimately refuse the refund. Happy to be corrected. I know it's horrible to talk about replacements when thinking about living things, and as I said above we are keeping our puppy and committed to paying for the necessary treatment. I was, however, trying to prove that a return and refund isn't an acceptable course of action for us. Hope this makes sense. - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/274834/bis-13-1360-consumer-rights-bill-supply-of-goods-impact-final.pdf

Thanks, Bankfodder. I’ve just spoken to the two vets I’ve been working closely with and they are going to provide me with their formal recommendations for surgery and written quotations. My local vet has also agreed to provide something which states this should have been reasonably identified at 8 weeks, given the puppy’s teeth would have been fully grown in. This may sound like a silly question but what’s a letter of claim? Do you think I should be going for full vet costs associated with this moving forward, or tier 2 - I.e a partial refund - valuing the pup now at say £50, taking into account future costs?

Thanks to all, and especially Bankfodder. I had seen your replies to the lady that had a similar issue with her cat and really hoped you'd comment on post. I'm really grateful. I intend to follow this through to its conclusion and I'll keep the board updated for the benefit of future users. On the question of Vets4Pets, I'm taking advice as to whether this is something they should have detected. From my own research, however, puppy teeth are fully grown in at 6 weeks. His health check was 8 week. The defect can't have reasonably occurred within the intervening two weeks. I'm going to ask a vet to confirm this. In terms of your point, Ethel Street, I had the same concern. The Consumer Rights Act 2015, however, seems to suggest that if a return presents 'significant inconvenience' then a tier two process can take place in which the buyer can apply for a partial refund. I can prove that we've spent in excess of £600 on various expenses in preparation for our dog that would be lost if we returned him. I can also detail the time spent caring for and investing in our dog - not to mention the time etc of having to find a replacement. This is before we take into account the main reason, which is our emotional attachment to him.

Hi, Sorry, yes he’s a cockerpoo. Couple other points I missed: Insurance won’t cover any illness claims within the first 14 days of cover, so we’re automatically rejected. Either way, they probably wouldn’t cover it because it’s a pre existing condition. I don’t really want to publish the name of the seller until the claim is settled either way. The seller tried to pursue Vets4Pets but they aren’t admitting any responsibility at present. I honestly believe they care about their dog, and aren’t shamelessly profiteering, but perhaps have been a little naive about the liabilities associated with selling puppies. The potential costs of the dental treatment have obviously rang alarm bells.

Hi both, Thank you so much for your detailed replies. I completely agree with your comments re my puppy's welfare and he is booked in for surgery. Please rest assured that I'll act in his best interests before any financial consideration. To try to give a bit more detail: - I bought him just over 2 weeks ago and he was health checked after 10 days. - The condition was 100% present from birth and should have been spotted before we took ownership. - Big licensed breeders carry their own risks, as often the dogs are not well socialised. The advice that's commonly given online is to find a person that is breeding from their own pet, as long as you do extensive health checks. I checked for all the standard conditions - eyes, heart etc. Plus the pet that my pup was bred from originally came from a licensed breeder that health checks extensively. I also checked all the sires (dads) paperwork. Unfortunately, this condition is often not visible in the parents who can be carriers of the gene. I've emailed the seller detailing all the steps I've taken to keep him informed, including the quotes for treatment, and detailed the content of our phone conversations. Any other comments are really welcome. Thanks again

Hi all, Unfortunately, I'm having a difficult time having recently bought a puppy with a pre-exisiting condition that I was unaware of. I found this forum after doing some research online and the feedback was really well-informed. I'd be really grateful for any advice from legal minds My story (I've tried to keep it concise for clarity): I recently bought a puppy from a home breeder. They have never breed dogs before and aren't a licensed business. Our puppy was sold as having passed a full health check from Vets4Pets. Our puppy was £1,200. Two weeks after picking him up, I took him to the vets for his second vaccinations and a health check. At that point the vet diagnosed him with a "lingually displaced canine." This means that one of his lower canines is displaced and pressing into the roof of his mouth. Our puppy would have had his full set of puppy teeth by 6 weeks, and his first health check was at 8 weeks. Therefore, this condition was either missed from his first health check, or ignored by the breeder. Either way, the condition was certainly present before we took ownership. It's a hereditary condition. I've had three quotes from different vets for removing the tooth which range from £350 from Vets4Pets to £1000-£2000 for a dental vet specialist. The hope is that, if the puppy tooth is removed early, the adult tooth will grow in normally. If it doesn't, however, the costs could be around £2,000 for treatment on his adult canine. I've given the breeder the time he asked for to consider his options. His final offer was a full refund if we return our puppy. This isn't something we want to do as we are already so attached to him. Legally, it would also create us significant inconvenience, as a replacement isn't forthcoming - or even possible. He has refused to contribute to the cost of treatment, admit any kind of liability, or give us a partial refund and allow us to keep our puppy. From what I've read, tier two of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 may apply - and we could argue that a the return and refund offered would cause us 'significant inconvenience' and that the puppy was misrepresnted as healthy, and therefore a partial refund is in order. Again, any advice on whether I may have a case, if I take it to the small claims court, would be really appreciated. Thanks so much.